Politics

[PARA45]

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas’ Ban on Handgun Carry by Young Adult​

FORT WORTH, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski. “The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.”

In order to allow Texas time to appeal and seek a stay, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days. “Though Plaintiffs’ interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal,” the Court said. As such, young adults in Texas under age 21 should not carry handguns in public under this decision until the injunction takes effect. FPC will continue to provide updates on this case at FPCLaw.org and on social media.

The judgment in Andrews is likely the first final judgment on the merits in favor of Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen this June. The plaintiffs in this case were represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, who are representing FPC and individual gun owners in multiple other legal cases, as well as Texas counsel R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

 

[jeanes]

I find it interesting that 18 year olds are considered adult and trustworthy enough to vote but not to purchase and carry firearms. Remember, a push to allow 16 year-olds to vote was being made not so long ago.

 

[marksman]

 

[marksman]

 

[wesheltonj]

Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas’ Ban on Handgun Carry by Young Adult​

FORT WORTH, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski. “The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.”

In order to allow Texas time to appeal and seek a stay, the trial court stayed the injunction for 30 days. “Though Plaintiffs’ interest in the vindication of their Constitutional rights suffers while the judgment is stayed, the stay is necessary to militate the possible negative effects of relying on the injunction while it is subject to appellate review and possible reversal,” the Court said. As such, young adults in Texas under age 21 should not carry handguns in public under this decision until the injunction takes effect. FPC will continue to provide updates on this case at FPCLaw.org and on social media.

The judgment in Andrews is likely the first final judgment on the merits in favor of Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen this June. The plaintiffs in this case were represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, who are representing FPC and individual gun owners in multiple other legal cases, as well as Texas counsel R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

Surprising from Pitman, an Obama appointee.

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[Ray B]

I liked 99% of Trump's policies but he himself left a lot to be desired. As an outsider I would say the only way the Dems can hold on to power in 2022 is if Trump stands again.

Hear me out...

Let's say he and De Santis run then you have two candidates that have the same policies but Trump is, well Trump. His popularity will ensure his faithful support him (30% - 40%) but it is not enough to get him across the line. He MAY pull in a few percent from the undecided middle. Of that 30& - 40% many only voted for him because there was no viable option so I would guess that in reality is 30%.

People are fed up with Biden and the Dems but no way in hell will any Dems vote for Trump and the RINOs will still not support him. Even though there is a shit show currently playing out.

Now put De Santis up there, he has the policies to match the Trump vision without the personality flaws. Yes he MAY get corrupted by the swamp but it is not a given! Not every human is corruptible. With De Santis you'll have 30%-40% plus all the rest of the Republican vote and you'll pull a hell of a lot more from the undecided middle AS WELL AS a lot of disenfranchised Dems.

If you want the Dems out you have to dump the idea of Trump standing again. If Trump endorses De Santis you're on to a winner.

Another one that suffers from MSM indoctrination and limited vision.

 

[Major Bonkers]

A couple of months ago, or so, there was a link posted to an interesting story on the French oil major TOTAL and the Al Shabaab attack on its operations in Mozambique in March 2021:

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdo...attack-amarula-hotel-palma-mozambique-africa/

Suffice it to say that TOTAL did not come out of the story well, having left its sub-contractors adrift in the middle a major terrorist assault.

At the beginning of this year, TOTAL announced that it wanted to restart operations in Mozambique (although, given that it declared a force majeur to avoid paying its sub-contractors last time, I imagine that it will have to pay in advance this time).

Now more excitement: 'The Daily Telegraph' (behind a paywall) has published the following article:

French oil giant Total accused of fuelling Russia’s ‘war crime’ jets​

Le Monde lambasts Emmanuel Macron’s government and says oil giant can ‘no longer plead ignorance’ after resisting end to Russian operations

By Henry Samuel IN PARIS 25 August 2022 • 7:15pm

French oil giant TotalEnergies has been accused of helping to fuel Russian fighter jets that have bombed Ukrainian civilians, including the victims of the Mariupol theatre airstrike, in an NGO and French media investigation.
Throughout the Ukraine invasion, gas condensate, a liquid similar to crude oil, has been sent from the Termokarstovoye field in Siberia – which Total jointly owns – to a refinery and converted to jet fuel for Russian warplanes, said Global Witness and Le Monde.
The French newspaper said the revelation was embarrassing not just for Total but for Emmanuel Macron, the French president, who has resisted opposition calls to tax the French firm’s record “superprofits” of $5.7 billion (£4.8 billion) in the second quarter of 2022 – attributed partly to rising petrol prices linked to the war in Ukraine.
Using data obtained from London Stock Exchange business Refinitiv, Le Monde was able to track the shipment of kerosene from the Ops refinery – which received the gas condensate – to two Russian air force bases, Morozovskaya and Malchevo, each housing a squadron of multirole Sukhoi combat aircraft.
Jets from these bases took part in various bombardments of civilian areas, including the Mariupol theatre attack on March 16, 2022, which Amnesty International dubbed a “proven war crime”. It is estimated that 600 civilians were killed in the attack.
They are also believed to have taken part in a March 3 strike on Chernihiv, near Kyiv, which reportedly killed 47 civilians.
TotalEnergies is the only major Western oil group to have refused to end operations in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in February.
The French oil giant insists it only exports Russian gas, which is not currently under EU embargo. Gas condensate is not deemed oil even if it can be converted into kerosene.
The company has issued a statement firmly rejecting the allegations. “Not true, TotalEnergies does not produce kerosene for the Russian army. Not true, TotalEnergies is not involved in the supply of fuel to Russian military aircraft in any form whatsoever,’’ a spokesman for the company said.
But Louis Goddard, senior data investigations adviser at Global Witness, said: “They have said their production has no connection to Russia’s military operations, but that is no longer a tenable position. Total must come clean and explain what they knew about the connection between these gas fields and Russian warplanes.’’

‘Financing murder of Ukrainian civilians’​

In an editorial, Le Monde – which forced Total to pull out of Myanmar in January after revealing that it had contributed to financing the military junta – said the company was “playing with fire” and could “no longer plead ignorance”.
Oleg Ustenko, economic adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, said: “We have been warning companies for months that by buying Putin’s blood oil they are financing the murder of Ukrainian civilians.
“But TotalEnergies has gone a step further by fuelling war crimes.”
Clement Beaune, the French transport minister, became the first government official to comment on the allegations on Thursday.
“This is an extremely serious subject, so there needs to be an investigation into whether, voluntarily or involuntarily, there has been a bypass of either the sanctions or the energy that a company, French or other, has produced,” he said on France 2 television.

 

[Ray B]

The dominoes that have fallen, pushing over another domino and it all started with Biden changing policies just because the policies were from the previous administration. The Bidet will go down in history as the president/administration that cut off the nations nose just to spite its face.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

@Ray B : "It wasn't Trump that displayed spoiled brat behavior. He was responding in self-defense..."

Yes Ray, he did. Repeatedly. Over and over. That is my issue with him. His policies worked. But he always chose to not take the high road, to display even just a smidgen of civility. Responding in self-defense? He responded like a butt-hurt kindergartener. He needed to be the adult in the room. Yes, the other side was acting like that too, but I didn't vote for them.

I voted for him - twice. Like @Red Leg and others, that second vote.... I was holding my nose as I did. What I told people was I was actually voting for Pence, who did know how to act like an adult.

Things were good under his administration. He clearly did some very right things. He just as clearly didn't always act like a Commander in Chief should act, IMHO. Maybe I want too much but I want it all, or at least more: someone who gets things done and does it without acting petulant all the time. I really hope a candidate (DeSantis seems most likely) emerges that offers the potential for more.

 

[VertigoBE]

It’s a massacre again today on EU energy markets… the whole trading floor is borderline apocalyptic at this point. Electricity here, for every hour of the entire year 2023, is currently approaching, or in the case of Germany has passed, the 1000€/MWh mark. As a reference, in 2019, the last normal year, the price was 50€/MWh…

I have multiple customers in my portfolio, global giants in petrochemical products, plastics, cement, metals etc, which are all closing down, shutting their plants till further order.

There is a tsunami on its way to the current Western economy and way of living and people are going to get crushed…

Had to get this off my chest.

 

[shootist~]

Sadly for the country, if Trump runs again he will loose, Again. And almost surly give the Democrats control of the house and senate - Yet Again.

There are just too many conservatives, not to mention independents, who just will not vote for him. I know and am even related to several.

 

[Ray B]

Life consists of many choices but we only get one. We don't get to see how things would have turned out if we had made a different choice. So it is with President Trump. Some allege that despite how he was treated that he should have responded as if his name was Jesus.
My answer is: It is difficult to play by the rules of Marquis de Queensbury when your adversaries, whom are many are playing by the rules of Marquis de Sade.

Just possibly president Trump would have fit the "presidential model of behavior" had the losers treated him as if he had actually won and was the choice of the American people.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

No, not Jesus. Just an adult.

You are right: life consists of choices. One of those is how we will act. And it doesn't matter how others act, how we act is on us. I used to have a poster in my classroom, when I was still a classroom teacher. It depicted a solitary figure with the words "Stand up for what's right, even if you're standing alone."

I suspect you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. I admire your support - I abhor fair weather fans. But his behavior was frequently juvenile and petty throughout his term; why not use that energy for building people up and looking for the positive? You can be strong and still do that. I don't think he's changed, and I really want something different.

 

[steve white]

@Ray B : "It wasn't Trump that displayed spoiled brat behavior. He was responding in self-defense..."

Yes Ray, he did. Repeatedly. Over and over. That is my issue with him. His policies worked. But he always chose to not take the high road, to display even just a smidgen of civility. Responding in self-defense? He responded like a butt-hurt kindergartener. He needed to be the adult in the room. Yes, the other side was acting like that too, but I didn't vote for them.

I voted for him - twice. Like @Red Leg and others, that second vote.... I was holding my nose as I did. What I told people was I was actually voting for Pence, who did know how to act like an adult.

Things were good under his administration. He clearly did some very right things. He just as clearly didn't always act like a Commander in Chief should act, IMHO. Maybe I want too much but I want it all, or at least more: someone who gets things done and does it without acting petulant all the time. I really hope a candidate (DeSantis seems most likely) emerges that offers the potential for more.

Given that description of Trump, I wonder if it would be out of line to compare him to Andrew Jackson?

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

General Eisenhower was never a combat commander but he held the allies together to defeat the Axis powers.

General Patton was an aggressive and successful combat commander but not a politician.

Lieutenant General “Chesty” Puller was the most decorated US Marine ever. Aggressive and successful in battle for which over his 37 years of service he received five Navy Crosses, a Distinguished Service Cross, and a Silver Star. Chesty was however never the Commandant of the US Marine Corps.

As the fictional Dirty Harry said, “A mans got to know his limitations.” I believe President Trump had his day. Now it’s time for him to accept his limitations and let someone who will be accepted by a wider range of voters run as the Republican candidate. I however strongly want Trump to stir the pot from the sidelines, to rally the troops, and to provide the aggressive political support as only he can!

 

[Wheels]

Don’t think I will be getting an electric car anytime soon.

 

[meigsbucks]

Don’t think I will be getting an electric car anytime soon.

View attachment 485045

Buy a new car.

 

[WAB]

Buy a new car.

Some do. Lower end electric cars are totaled when the battery goes. You’ve got to be a special kind of stupid to think that this is good for the environment.